Thursday, May 24, 2007

Why exams?

I know I've at least been studying, if not internalising the information I'm reading. How do I know? A random cashier today asked me if I had been to Starbucks yet today. I was like, "Huh?" so she said that she has been seeing me sit in Starbucks and Delifrance a lot, or words to that effect. I'm not sure whether I should feel smug that I have been studying or despair that I have nothing to show for my butt sitting. I could barely get past Hearsay today which sounds too much like heresy and it reminds me of Leviticus (read the Bible) where the same numbers and issues come up over and over again; the same words leap up from the page and you wonder whether you've read it at all.

Preconditions of section 32(1)(a) Evidence Act 1950; maker of relevant statement must be dead or unable to be found or incapable of giving statement or cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expenses.

Preconditions of section 32(1)(b) Evidence Act 1950; maker of relevant statement must be dead or unable to be found or incapable of giving statement or cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expenses.

Preconditions of section 32(1)(c) Evidence Act 1950; maker of relevant statement must be dead or unable to be found or incapable of giving statement or cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expenses.

Preconditions of section 32(1)(d) Evidence Act 1950; maker of relevant statement must be dead or unable to be found or incapable of giving statement or cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expenses.

It goes on until 32(1)(j). You really want me to go on? No wonder lawyers are all anal and by that I'm not defaming anyone! See Atip bin Ali v. Josephine Nunis (1987). So there!!!!!!!!!

No comments: